Critics also expressed doubts as to whether Alliant Energy’s green pricing option, known as Beyond Solar, would lead to the development of new renewable energy in the state.

Advocates say it looks like the option, now pending before the Iowa Utilities Board, will simply tap into wind and solar resources that Alliant Energy already owns. That would defeat the purpose of green pricing, critics add, and apparently would not follow the “spirit and intent” of a law that requires utilities to offer green pricing, or a premium for renewable energy.

“While it might not technically violate the rules, it certainly violates the spirit and intent of those rules,” said Josh Mandelbaum, a staff attorney based in Iowa for the Environmental Law & Policy Center.

“The way this program is set up, the same amount of renewable energy is going to be on the grid whether no one participates in the program or 1,000 people participate,” Mandelbaum continued.

The reason, he said, is because Alliant Energy proposes to provide Beyond Solar subscribers with energy from two existing sources of generation — a power-purchase agreement with an Iowa wind farm and a 5-megawatt (MW) solar array that Alliant just built in Dubuque.

‘Incredibly high premium’

Mandelbaum also said the new choices offered by Beyond Solar come with an “incredibly high premium” that would approximately double a customer’s power bill.

Three Beyond Solar options are available: 100 percent solar, a 50/50 split of solar and wind, and 25 percent solar with 75 percent wind. In each scenario, generation capacity is sold in increments of 1 kilowatt and is added to a customer’s existing bill. The cost per kilowatt is $13.61 for 100 percent solar, $6.70 for 50 percent solar and $3.24 for 25 percent solar.

A typical residential customer choosing to go 100 percent solar would need to buy 5 kilowatts a month, incurring a roughly $68 monthly fee. That basically would double the cost of electricity, according to Mandelbaum.

Beyond Solar would be in addition to a green-pricing option that Alliant introduced in 2001. Known as Second Nature, it offers the option of renewable power derived mostly from wind for an additional 2 cents per kilowatt hour. Mandelbaum says it is much less costly than power purchased through Beyond Solar.

Foss said Alliant developed Beyond Solar to satisfy customers who have been requesting green-pricing alternatives to Second Nature.

“Second Nature really involves a lot of wind energy,” Foss said. “There’s a miniscule amount of solar in there. Beyond Solar would involve mostly solar. We find there are a couple types of customers: Some customers want low-cost renewable energy, or just renewable energy in general. Some customers really just want solar energy. So we are trying to create different options.”

The two programs, he added, “are not designed to compete against each other.”

Adding renewables

While tapping into an existing source of solar energy is fundamentally different from investing in additional solar generation, Foss said, “It’s difficult to create a new program if there are no existing assets. It’s hard to say to a customer, ‘Sign up now and I’ll give (power) to you in two years, once we purchase the land and move forward on that.’”

Mandelbaum countered that other utilities — such as the city electric provider in Cedar Falls, Iowa — have done just that.

Alliant proposes launching Beyond Solar on November 1 while continuing to offer Second Nature. Jennifer Easler, an attorney with Iowa’s Office of Consumer Advocate, said she’s concerned that Alliant might be more aggressive in marketing the more-costly Beyond Solar to customers who are unaware of what they’re getting.

“They’re paying a premium for existing resources,” she said, adding that “there’s not a direct commitment” to invest in more renewable resources. Even if Beyond Solar attracts a lot of customers, she said, the recently completed 5-MW array in Dubuque has “quite a bit of room … for expansion.”

On the wind side, Beyond Solar will meet customer demand with generation from the Hancock wind farm, which it may no longer use for Second Nature customers because it is too old and no longer meets the certification requirements of Green-e, a clean-energy certifier.

“Cynical” is how Mandelbaum characterized Alliant’s proposal to sell uncertified wind energy and existing solar energy with the suggestion that customers would be paying a hefty premium to develop new renewable resources. He said Alliant envisions reserving all of the benefits of renewable power for itself, and leaving customers with no long-term benefits from renewable energy — just a higher bill.

If Alliant wanted to move renewable energy along, Mandelbaum suggested it could devise a community renewable program.

“It’s something we’ve had many conversations about, but we’re not there,” he said. “A community renewable program, at least one that meets best practices, adds renewables and allows customers to benefit. It would accomplish several things that this does not.”

]]>http://midwestenergynews.com/2017/08/14/iowa-utility-offers-high-green-pricing-without-adding-renewables/feed/0Group aims to reduce solar ‘soft costs’ in Ohio coal regionhttp://midwestenergynews.com/2017/08/11/group-aims-to-reduce-solar-soft-costs-in-ohio-coal-region/
http://midwestenergynews.com/2017/08/11/group-aims-to-reduce-solar-soft-costs-in-ohio-coal-region/#respondFri, 11 Aug 2017 11:00:00 +0000https://midwestenergynews.com/?p=445766A new program seeks to spur solar energy development in southeastern Ohio by cutting costs and reducing barriers at the local level. The plan will provide technical assistance to help four small towns and rural areas in Appalachian Ohio receive recognition as solar-friendly communities.

The Southeast Ohio Public Energy Council (SOPEC) has engaged Sarah Conley-Ballew to help Somerset, Amesville, the city of Athens and the unincorporated parts of Athens County get SolSmart designation. That federally funded program is administered by the Solar Foundation.

“SolSmart designation essentially ranks a city’s solar friendliness,” explained Conley-Ballew, who is also executive director of Upgrade Ohio. “What makes us kind of unique…is that we’re among the only rural communities participating.”

Eliminating ‘artificial barriers’

SOPEC, like other aggregator organizations in Ohio, uses the purchasing power of many customers in participating communities to bargain for lower retail rates for electricity. But that’s not its only goal, stressed SOPEC Executive Director Eddie Smith.

“A large component of our mission is try to incentivize local generation assets, particularly local renewable generation assets,” Smith said. The SolSmart program can help “change the economic landscape” for investments in distributed energy in the group’s member communities, he added.

Among other things, Conley-Ballew will help communities revise local ordinances to reduce certain “soft costs” for solar energy. Communities don’t control most expenses involved in labor and supply chains. But communities can remove or streamline other barriers, such as zoning hurdles, permit requirements, processing fees, inspections, wait times and other things that add to a project’s overall expense, she noted.

In many instances, existing ordinances don’t contemplate the installation of solar generation and lack reasonable, uniform standards, she said. Higher-level designations under the SolSmart program basically let property owners install solar capacity as a matter of right, she added.

“Panel costs and the costs of technology for solar have come down a huge amount over the last several years. And so it’s the soft costs that are becoming one of the key barriers that are left,” explained Madeline Fleisher at the Environmental Law & Policy Center (ELPC) in Columbus. ELPC is not involved in SOPEC’s SolSmart initiative, but is active in other programs aimed at increasing clean energy resources throughout the Midwest.

“A lot of these soft costs are really artificial barriers,” particularly at the local level, Fleisher continued. “So any time you can eliminate those, you’re really opening the door for folks to make whatever is the best choice for them,” Fleisher said.

Conley-Ballew will also assist communities in making information about solar energy readily available to people through their websites and other resources. That can make it easier for people to connect with vendors, learn about products and costs, and move forward with projects, she said.

Economic development potential

The U.S. Department of Energy funds the SolSmart program as part of its SunShot initiative. That program aims to lower costs for residential, commercial and utility-scale photovoltaic power down to five, four and three cents per kilowatt hour, respectively, by 2030.

Franklin County is already a bronze-level participant in the program. That county includes metropolitan Columbus. Cincinnati was also an “early adopter” in the program.

In contrast to those areas, rural communities in southeastern Ohio have some of the state’s highest unemployment rates. As of June, the unemployment rate for Athens County was 7.3 percent, according to state labor data.

“This region has historically relied upon extractive industries,” said Mathew Roberts at Upgrade Ohio. Extensive coal mining and natural gas drilling have taken place in Appalachian Ohio. “And that helped build this country,” he said.

Yet while coal jobs have been declining in Ohio, the number of solar jobs has been on the rise. “Athens County is home to six solar installation companies,” Smith observed.

“Creating a more friendly, hospitable environment for solar development is really good for the existing businesses we have in southeastern Ohio, which are great employers,” Smith continued. “I think solar jobs in southeastern Ohio are some of the best energy jobs people can have.”

Role of utility-scale solar?

While the SolSmart program focuses on distributed solar generation, American Electric Power had also named southeastern Ohio as a preferred site for up to 400 megawatts (MW) of solar generation. AEP committed to build that and 500 MW of wind generation as part of a settlement agreement with a limited number of parties in a regulatory case in December 2015. That case had asked regulators to require all of AEP’s Ohio ratepayers to pay additional costs for certain coal plants.

AEP’s project could help make Appalachian Ohio a “hub” for solar energy by attracting more manufacturers and other businesses to the area, David Wilhelm of Hecate Energy said at a conference presented by Green Energy Ohio last fall. AEP issued a request for proposals last December.

But the terms of the AEP settlement agreement made its commitment contingent upon having costs for the project covered by ratepayers. Critics such as David Dwyer of American Renewable Energy have said that would shield AEP from competition from his company and others and distort the market in utilities’ favor. Pending House Bill 247 would also prohibit utilities from owning or being affiliated with electricity generation facilities.

Regardless of how that large-scale project turns out, SOPEC’s SolSmart program is moving ahead now.

“It’s particularly important to drive demand for clean energy in coal country in Appalachian Ohio because we have a history of energy leadership in our region,” Conley-Ballew said. “We believe that renewable energy is the way of the future…. We want Appalachian Ohio to lead the way in the renewable energy revolution.”

Yet public health advocates say the decision is important for keeping the air clean of particulates and other pollutants that can having damaging health impacts across the state’s population.

“It’s good news that we’re updating the prices, it’s long overdue to do an increase — at that level, it’s a positive win,” said Jon Hunter, director of the American Lung Association in Minnesota. “This recognizes that there are costs on our power bills that effect our hospital bills. To reflect that in our power planning is a much-needed change.”

The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission’s (PUC) decision, passed 3-2, raises the cost of carbon to a range of $9.05 to $43.06 per short ton, from 44 cents to $4.53. It was the first update to the state’s cost of carbon in 20 years.

Minnesota utilities have no plans to open coal plants and are, in fact, closing several of them over the next decade. The decision will most likely impact consideration of new natural gas-powered plants.

Meanwhile, much of the debate over climate change has focused on rising sea levels, torrential rainfall, drought, and other physical manifestations. Yet dozens of studies point to perhaps an equally disturbing outcome that increases chances of disease, heat exhaustion, morbidity and other health struggles and impacts health care costs significantly.

“It’s a good start,” Bruce D. Snyder, a member of Health Professionals for a Healthy Climate, said of Minnesota regulators’ action. “It really levels the playing field for regulators when they’re looking at the renewable energy facilities versus fossil fuel facilities.”

Thomas Kottke, a cardiologist and associate medical director at HealthPartners, called the PUC’s decision a good one because “the cost of carbon-based energy is huge.”

“The untold story is the science of the direct health implications of particulate matter and ozone …We’ve had number of bad consequences of climate change and it’s not getting any better,” Kottke said.

Particulates and mortality

Kottke said a recent New England Journal of Medicine article points clearly to the problem of particulates. The study found that from 2000 to 2012 mortality rates increased in areas where particulate matter increased.

All-cause mortality increased 7.3 percent in the study, and the people most effected were those least equipped to deal with it. “This effect was most pronounced among self-identified racial minorities and people with low income,” the report said, referring to increasing particulate rates.

Hunter cited a 2015 Minnesota Department of Health and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency report that used 2008 data to look at the impact of air pollution.

The study suggests that particulate pollution that year caused roughly 2,000 deaths, 400 hospitalizations, and 600 emergency room visits. Those numbers will only grow with more fossil-fuel-based power generation, he said.

American Lung Association of Minnesota board member Dr. Gail Brottman, who works for Hennepin County Medical Center, said in a statement after the PUC decision that asthma is the most chronic childhood disease and the science is clear of the connection between it and particulate pollution.

The county’s medical center spent $11 million last year on admissions for asthma, she said. “There are broader costs of an asthma attack beyond the hospital costs as well,” Brottman said. “A child having an asthma attack missed school and that means parents missed work. This hurts both a child’s education and results in lost revenue to the parents’ employers. There is an emotional toll as well.”

Prolonged illness

Meanwhile, Snyder points out rising heat-related illnesses will likely increase substantially, as will the energy costs to cool homes and businesses.

One result of warming temperatures can be seen now in the growing incidence of deer and black legged ticks, he said. The latter was once confined to southeastern Minnesota but “has now spread throughout the state,” Snyder noted.

A report on Minnesota in Tickcheck — a website devoted to tracking tick cases in every state using Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data — showed the level of Lyme disease increasing from 2007 to 2015.

More than 20,000 tick cases in Minnesota were reported from 2000 to 2015, and the website suggests those numbers tend to be underestimated. The median number of cases has grown from 464 from 1996 to 2005 to 1,121 from 2006 to 2015, state data show.

Tick bites can result in Lyme disease, which “is going up exponentially. These diseases cost a lot in medical care and can be prolonged illnesses,” Snyder said, adding that variations of Lyme disease have gotten deadlier.

As temperatures grow hotter and the state’s many waterways, marshes and bogs become warmer the tick population will only increase, he said.

Those same rising temperatures that threaten to sink Miami and New York will also cause greater pulmonary issues to the residents of Minnesota, Snyder suggested. For example, lung disease caused by rising ozone will bring more emergency room visits and higher morbidity.

Increased pressure on lungs from air pollution — especially in people with asthma and cardiopulmonary problems — will also bring more disease, Kottke said.

Even pre-term births increase with air pollution. A recent study showed 18 percent of pre-term births are attributed to high levels of particulate matter in the air, he said.

“That’s a much larger problem in China” because of air pollution, Kottke said, “but it’s not a trivial issue in the United States, either.”

Additionally, one of the best foods for neurological development is fish, Kottke said, but the mercury in it can be dangerous. The challenge is especially acute in northeastern Minnesota lakes because air pollution from North Dakota’s coal plants have made mercury a more pervasive problem in that region, he said.

HealthPartners has created a website called “Choose Your Fish” to help families select fish with low mercury content, Kottke said.

Minnesota impact

The 2014 report states that Minnesota is seeing record temperature increases during both daytime and overnight, higher humidity and greater precipitation.

As the climate changes Minnesota will see more extreme heat, especially in the densely populated Twin Cities. Extreme heat particularly affects young children, people living in poverty, the elderly and workers with outdoor occupations in construction and other fields.

The report also uses data to detail the negative impacts of ozone pollution, vector-borne diseases, flooding and drought on the health of the state.

While the state has not seen a drought in several years, the wild fires out west a few years ago brought the worst air quality the Twin Cities and Minnesota has seen in years, said Hunter, of the American Lung Association.

While the Minnesota report largely shows how the oldest, youngest and poorest will feel the brunt of climate change, Snyder said mental health is also overlooked in the climate change discussion.

The challenge goes beyond the simple shock of a major climatic event, and the Department of Health’s website points out the mental health aftermath can be just as heart wrenching.

“Many people who experience disaster struggle with displacement (temporary or long-term), unstable or unknown housing circumstances, difficulty finding temporary shelter, lack of access to support services, and loss of employment and possessions,” the authors said.

Snyder believes the mental anguish never evaporates. “You can look at major climate events, such as Hurricane Sandy and Hurricane Katrina, and see a marked increase of post-traumatic stress, anxiety and depression,” he said.

“We’ve had something like four 1,000-year floods in Minnesota in the last few years. I can tell you without any hesitation that the people who lived through those things — whose houses where flooded, whose businesses were ruined, whose crops and livestock were destroyed — live with the residual of that in their minds and in their hearts,” he added.

What Minnesota regulators did by increasing the cost of carbon when planning new energy generation, Snyder said, “is important in moving us forward.”

]]>http://midwestenergynews.com/2017/08/09/minnesota-health-advocates-praise-increased-social-cost-of-carbon/feed/0Ameren request for lower energy efficiency targets stokes division in Illinoishttp://midwestenergynews.com/2017/08/08/ameren-request-for-lower-energy-efficiency-targets-stokes-division-in-illinois/
http://midwestenergynews.com/2017/08/08/ameren-request-for-lower-energy-efficiency-targets-stokes-division-in-illinois/#commentsTue, 08 Aug 2017 11:00:00 +0000https://midwestenergynews.com/?p=434393Illinois residents who live “downstate” — almost everywhere outside the Chicago metropolitan area — have long felt that their needs, views and very existence are overshadowed by the politics, economics and culture of the Windy City.

The utility Ameren Illinois, which serves downstate customers, is invoking that sentiment in defense of its request for lower energy efficiency targets under the sweeping energy law passed last year.

Ameren says it can’t realistically or cost-effectively meet the targets enshrined in the statute, and it is asking the Illinois Commerce Commission to lower its targets. Environmental and clean energy groups and the state Attorney General’s office say Ameren should be held to the targets in the law, and point out that ComEd, the utility serving Chicago and northern Illinois, is committed to substantially more ambitious targets.

The law, hashed out during months of negotiations in which energy efficiency targets were a contentious issue, sets separate energy savings mandates for ComEd and Ameren. There are various ways to quantify the difference between Ameren’s targets in the law and Ameren’s request. Critics say Ameren’s request will mean they save 27 percent less energy over four years than if they had complied with the targets in the law. Ameren did not provide their own number, but a spokesperson said the utility is proposing “aggressive” goals of 13 percent energy savings by 2025 and 16 percent by 2030.

Ameren officials and experts testifying on the company’s behalf say its largely rural customer base is more geographically dispersed, lower-income and less-educated than ComEd’s customers, making it more expensive to reach, convince and help them reduce their energy use. Ameren also serves more large industries exempt from participating in efficiency programs than ComEd does, and Ameren needs to spend more specifically to help its low-income customers, the utility argues.

“Chicago-based bureaucrats like CUB and the Clean Jobs Coalition don’t have knowledge of or interest in downstate Illinois,” said Ameren spokesperson Marcelyn Love. “In fact, they have likely never been to the southern region of the state. We know the needs of our customers best. We have designed programs to meet the needs of people living in central and southern Illinois, not Chicago.”

The environmental groups say the differences in the utilities’ customer bases were already figured into the law through the differing targets.

“They don’t understand Southern Illinois it seems,” Andrew Barbeau, a consultant for the Environmental Defense Fund, said of Ameren.“They accuse Southern Illinois customers of being less educated and other derogatory things. It is just unfortunate.”

Testimony filed by Vermont-based energy consultant Chris Neme on behalf of the environmental groups noted that, in some ways, Ameren should have an easier time saving energy than ComEd does, in part because labor costs in downstate Illinois are cheaper than in Chicago.

“Ameren ignores a number of differences between it and ComEd that should work in the other direction — i.e. that would make it easier (all other things equal) to acquire savings at a lower cost,” Neme testified.

Low-income customers

Critics say Ameren is proposing to rely too heavily on behavior-changing education and outreach programs rather than measures with more bang for the buck. Under the law, energy efficiency measures billed to ratepayers generally need to pass a cost-effectiveness test, but measures that help low-income populations are not subject to that test.

Neme testified that “as a last resort,” Ameren should reduce spending on low-income programs to the minimum level required by law and “reallocate freed up funds to programs with greater savings yields per dollar.”

Love said the critics want Ameren to meet the law’s targets at the expense of low-income customers. She said that if the utility is forced to meet the current targets, it will have to cut programs for low- and moderate-income people including incentives for air conditioners.

“That’s a possibly life-saving measure,” she said. “And it would mean eliminating Ameren funds for making health and safety-related repairs that are needed before energy efficiency equipment can be installed.”

Barbeau and David Kolata, executive director of the Citizens Utility Board, both called the focus on low-income customers a “red herring.”

“They’re trying to split our community and it’s not working,” said Kolata. “It’s not an either-or. There should be an appropriate investment in low-income programs, but they can do that and still meet their targets.”

“They are spending exorbitant amounts of money on overhead and administrative costs,” Barbeau added. “Within low-income programs, they are investing in programs that are the least cost-effective first, which means low-income customers will benefit less, while Ameren benefits more.”

In testimony for Ameren, Ingrid Rohmund, senior vice president of the California-based Applied Energy Group, said that federal regulations regarding appliance efficiency have eroded the potential for new savings in that arena, and many customers have already turned to efficient lighting. Hence the low-hanging fruit has largely been plucked, she indicated, and the utility must rely more on expensive behavioral-modification programs.

But Neme testified that Ameren underestimated the potential savings it could achieve from appliance recycling and the “early retirement” of inefficient appliances. He also said that Ameren did not adequately account for innovations in the future that could increase energy savings cheaply.

Moving goals

Barbeau and Kolata said that with the lower targets, Ameren stands to avoid up to $36 million in penalties it could have incurred for failing to meet targets in the law. And, they said, the utility stands to gain up to $36 million in bonuses offered under the law for exceeding targets.

NRDC energy efficiency expert Noah Garcia said Ameren’s request “adjusts the goal posts so if Ameren’s goals are lower it potentially makes it easier for them to receive a financial reward by going above those targets.”

Love countered that it is unlikely Ameren would exceed their requested targets or receive bonuses, and if they did the bonus would only be $10.1 million over the four years.

The law allows for adjusting targets if a utility demonstrates they cannot meet them without exceeding a ceiling on energy efficiency spending billed to customers, in Ameren’s case $112 million per year. But critics say Ameren should not be able to ask for changes so soon after the law was passed. Many of the public comments filed in the case also oppose Ameren’s request.

“The provision in the statute on adjusting goals was put in there due to the uncertainty of energy efficiency programs and technology in the far out years — 2026-2030 — when there is a very real question about what can be achieved,” said Barbeau. “It was never intended to be a backdoor way for Ameren to go back on their commitments they made to the governor and general assembly just eight months ago.”

]]>http://midwestenergynews.com/2017/08/08/ameren-request-for-lower-energy-efficiency-targets-stokes-division-in-illinois/feed/1In Chicago and Iowa, contrasting tales of building a clean energy economyhttp://midwestenergynews.com/2017/08/07/in-chicago-and-iowa-contrasting-tales-of-building-a-clean-energy-economy/
http://midwestenergynews.com/2017/08/07/in-chicago-and-iowa-contrasting-tales-of-building-a-clean-energy-economy/#commentsMon, 07 Aug 2017 11:00:00 +0000https://midwestenergynews.com/?p=443525As former industrial communities seek to rebuild their economies around clean energy, two cities in the Midwest provide examples with starkly different outcomes.

Chicago’s Southeast Side and Newton, Iowa both used to house thriving industries, keeping residents with a solid toe in the middle class through well-paid and steady factory work. In Chicago it was steel, while Newton boomed under the all-encompassing attentions of the Maytag family and their washing machine factories.

Thirty years later, those core industries have left both areas and a handful of different businesses have taken their place. In Newton, the Maytag sites have been reborn to manufacture wind turbine bodies and blades. But in Chicago, the jutting land formerly housing U.S. Steel remains empty.

While urban Chicago and rural Iowa are different in obvious ways, experts say there are still common factors that influence how a green economic development transition takes place.

Greg Carlock, a climate researcher with the World Resources Institute, says that sustainable development is a wide-ranging and complicated process, but he has seen some essentials emerge. These were detailed in a study for the Brookings Institute in 2011 which found that any green development transitions require long-term commitment to incremental changes, a shared public-private vision, public support, specialization and strategies that take local context into effect.

And to understand how this plays out in real life, says Carlock, look at the local level.

“All changes are local, if you can identify these local models you have created the enabling environment for action,” he says.

Who is leading the transition – and bringing the resources?

Where the transitional plan comes from, and who has buy-in, is a significant factor. In Newton, the shock from the unexpected loss of their biggest employer pushed both local officials and community leaders to band together to find a new major employer for the area.

In contrast, the Southeast Side was just one of many areas in Chicago competing for economic development funding – and the valuable lakefront real estate is also being targeted by multiple parties for development.

U.S. Steel, the company that dominated a 369 acre site called the South Works, closed in 1992. It left an area of polluted and vacant land, one of the last few pieces of Chicago’s lakefront that was undeveloped or unclaimed. A series of development proposals has come and gone for the area, including a Solo Cup Factory and high-rise housing, to no avail.

Today there are three primary plans for developing the space. The first is the Green Economic Industrial Corridor plan, a blueprint created by the Southeast Environmental Task Force that re-imagines redevelopment of the site as including environmentally friendly businesses and residential space as well as integrating renewable energy.

The second is called the Chicago 808 Lakeshore Master Plan, a joint venture between a Spanish housing developer and a social media security platform called WELink to create apartments with up to 12,000 homes, and include extensive green spaces and gardens.

And most recently, the city of Chicago reached a deal with a developer to buy the property to convert the site into a mixed-use development which will include housing as well as manufacturing space.

These initiatives, announced over the last several years, however, are mostly stalled, moving slowly or in the very initial stages.

Alberto Rincon, a native of the Southeast Side, briefly a development intern with local alderman Sue Garza’s office and currently a graduate student at Harvard University completing a fellowship with the City of Chicago’s Mayor’s office, says he saw a lack of coordination, coherence and concreteness in these efforts that kept them from moving forward.

Michelle Kanaar

Alberto Rincon

The stalling is also an example of the ways in which poorer neighborhoods of color, and particularly those further away from the city center, see less investment. As the Southeast Side, which is more than 70 percent Latino and majority working class, has been struggling to find a developer for the area, complicated projects with more city backing, like the development of an elevated walking trail on the wealthier and whiter Northwest Side, have moved forward.

“People don’t really know a lot about what is going on around here,” says Rincon. Unlike initiatives in other areas that have had direct mayoral backing, the Southeast Side has been working with numerous local partners but is rarely a pet project of the mayor’s office. “It’s important to collaborate because it allows communities to tap into the resources and skill-sets needed to see a project through,” says Rincon.

Carlock says that a disconnect between citizens and government is common, and unfortunate. “If the needs of the people in the area can’t be conveyed up through the political apparatus, then the incentives aren’t aligned and the will won’t be there,” he says.

In Newton, Maytag announced in 2007 that it would be selling out to Whirlpool and closing the doors of its factories, which at their peak employed one in every five people in the town of 15,000 people. The leadership of the town – both then-mayor Chaz Allen and the Newton Development Corporation, a business group – saw the need for an immediate solution.

With Iowa already a leader in wind energy, the city decided to court two companies — TPI Composites, which makes wind turbine blades, and Trinity Structural Towers. Among the incentives for the companies, which eventually settled in Newton, were Maytag’s existing infrastructure, a workforce familiar with manufacturing, the city’s willingness to help redevelop the land for TPI Composites, and the availability of state-level funds to offer training programs.

“We had the workforce and we had the access to capital,” said Frank Liebl, executive director at the Newton Development Corporation, “and it gave us confidence that this was a good place to locate.”

Carlock says having a clear economic argument for a certain type of energy or industry is also often helpful when localities are considering large investments.

“When it makes economic sense, it aligns with values because it supports people,” says Carlock. “Everyone is motivated by positive economic outcomes, particularly when there is good policy alignment and market incentives.”

In Iowa, wind energy was the obvious answer. The state creates a larger share of its electricity from wind energy than any other in the country, and its wind energy infrastructure was rapidly growing. The state also offered tax incentives for areas that were interested in transitioning to green energy. Newton was also connected to rail lines that could carry components to other markets.

“It just happened that wind energy was taking off at the time, and we were in the right place,” says Liebl. “We want to create a new workforce, and let these youngsters know there is a career in manufacturing.”

Looking ahead

Green development in a larger city can be more complicated. In Chicago, clean energy manufacturing competes with other needs, such as those for tourist areas, nature reclamation and expanding affordable housing in an already densely populated area.

That said, Carlock says, there is “a clear global trend about where it is in the interests of global and national government to go in sustainability.”

A May 2017 report called “Sizing Up Our Region’s Green Economy,” from the University of Illinois at Chicago, found that the clean economy in the Chicago region was growing faster than other sectors, and that there were clear specialties that included energy services, lighting, and air-water purification.

Michelle Kanaar

Sue Garza

On the Southeast side, access to the Calumet River for bringing materials in and out of the area, as well as a population trained to work in manufacturing settings, could make it an area particularly good for green energy manufacturing, says Rincon.

On the former U.S. Steel site, Rincon says he would like to see wind or solar manufacturing, which could be helped by the state’s recent passage of the Future Energy Jobs Act, which promises support for bringing clean energy jobs to low-income communities.

The recently elected alderman of the 10th ward, Sue Garza, knows well the need for a livelihood for the residents of the area – her father was Ed Sadlowski, legendary union activist and former director of the United Steelworkers of America. Garza, before becoming alderman, was a former public school counselor and union activist.

“Traditionally the 10th ward has always been an industrial corridor, everyone comes to bring dirty industry and landfills,” she says. “But we want no more landfills, no more toxic waste. We want something that will revitalize the whole Southeast side of the city.”

Yana Kunichoff is an award-winning investigative journalist and documentary producer based in Chicago. Her work has appeared in The Guardian, The Atlantic, Fusion.net, Al Jazeera, Pacific Standard and Chicago Magazine.

]]>http://midwestenergynews.com/2017/08/07/in-chicago-and-iowa-contrasting-tales-of-building-a-clean-energy-economy/feed/1Michigan developer looks to combine clean energy with affordable housinghttp://midwestenergynews.com/2017/08/04/michigan-developer-looks-to-combine-clean-energy-with-affordable-housing/
http://midwestenergynews.com/2017/08/04/michigan-developer-looks-to-combine-clean-energy-with-affordable-housing/#commentsFri, 04 Aug 2017 11:00:00 +0000https://midwestenergynews.com/?p=438801For West Michigan developer Jeffrey Dombrowski, tying together clean energy and affordable housing is a chance to give back to residents after 20 years in the real estate business.

Dombrowski calls it a “new affordability” model for residential and commercial developments that pieces together affordable rents, “low to no utility expenses for tenants” and selecting project sites with “robust public transportation options.”

While recovering from a serious bicycling injury in 2009, Dombrowski decided he would use real estate development and his 20 years of experience in housing finance to help others.

Jeffrey Dombrowski

And while it’s yet to complete a redevelopment project since being founded in 2012, Dombrowski’s West Michigan Housing Alliance envisions renewable energy and energy efficiency components in plans for affordable housing units in downtown Grand Rapids.

Affordable housing is an ongoing issue in Grand Rapids, where a thriving real estate market has given way to higher rents and prices as large-scale investors purchase foreclosed homes on a broad scale.

The alliance’s first major project proposes a $42 million redevelopment of the 173,500-square-foot Keeler Building in Grand Rapids. The project was recently denied $2.8 million annually in affordable housing incentives from the Michigan State Housing Development Authority, but Dombrowski is confident about reapplying by early October.

Dombrowski does not yet own the building and construction has not begun — both actions are contingent on securing the low-income housing credits. However, local officials signed off on a “payment in lieu of taxes” plan for the property earlier this year, meaning payments to the city would come from a portion of rental income instead of property taxes.

Dombrowski’s plans at the 103-year-old Keeler building call for rents at 53 percent of market rate, energy efficiency features and onsite geothermal and solar generation. By achieving 60 percent net zero energy consumption, Dombrowski figures that equates to $97,000 a year in savings on utility bills.

“Under the new affordability model in developments, we’re passing the savings on to tenants,” Dombrowski said. “If we’re net zero they will truly only have rent to pay on the building.”

In addition to tenants, though, Dombrowski says such clean energy measures could increase the building’s valuation, or about $1.5 million in the case of Keeler.

“We see through the due diligence on Keeler the value of clean energy in building valuation,” he said.

The Appraisal Practices Board (APB) identifies such projects as “high performance property,” and offers guidance for appraisers on how to value them as they become increasingly popular.

“In some markets, the growing adoption of numerous green principles and the changing regulatory environment are creating a new normal against which properties are to be judged,” according to a 2015 advisory by The Appraisal Foundation.

Trend in the city

The West Michigan Housing Alliance also made a bid for a second, similar property in downtown Grand Rapids that is now owned by Kent County. The Alliance and another local developer, Rockford Development Group, were the two offers under consideration by the county until it put plans to sell the property on hold in late July.

Dombrowski says the concept was the same as at Keeler for 106 affordable housing units with solar and geothermal components.

In Grand Rapids, Dombrowski joins similar clean energy components being tied to new development. Last month, a local developer and Consumers Energy announced an energy district on the city’s west side that will include solar installations and energy storage.

In 2015, city officials announced the creation of a 2030 District, in which downtown property owners voluntarily commit to reducing energy use by 50 percent from 2003 levels by 2030. These efforts on privately owned property are in addition to the city of Grand Rapids’ goal of powering its operations on 100 percent renewables by 2025.

A key financing question hanging over future developments, however, is whether city or county officials permit Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) financing. Dombrowski and others believe this could lead to even more clean energy in redevelopments, though local officials say there isn’t sufficient interest among developers.

“The ability to learn PACE and what it means is a little daunting,” Dombrowski said. “I think it’s only a short time until PACE is embraced.”

Instead, Dombrowski says the Keeler project falls into an affordable housing “gap,” and qualifies for a specific 40-year HUD loan. While PACE financing is over a 20-year term, Dombrowski says it’s also “less cumbersome and less bureaucratic” than going through HUD.

“There is a deficit of affordable housing right now,” he said of the local market.

Dombrowski added that including clean energy components is a growing trend, albeit “slower than I expected. People are starting to realize that a decrease in utility expenses means an increase in net operating revenue and better valuation for commercial property owners. I think it’s going to take off.”

]]>http://midwestenergynews.com/2017/08/04/michigan-developer-looks-to-combine-clean-energy-with-affordable-housing/feed/2To solve ‘duck curve,’ Missouri utility to pay bonus for west-facing solar panelshttp://midwestenergynews.com/2017/08/03/to-solve-duck-curve-missouri-utility-to-pay-bonus-for-west-facing-solar-panels/
Thu, 03 Aug 2017 11:00:00 +0000https://midwestenergynews.com/?p=442313In an effort to better align solar-energy production with peak demand, the electric utility in Columbia, Missouri has begun to pay higher rebates for new west-facing arrays than it will for those facing south.

The city-owned utility adjusted its rebates as of Aug. 1 in order to encourage more solar production in late afternoon, when electricity use tends to peak, especially during the high-demand summer months.

“To date, most systems that have been installed have maximized benefits to the customer,” said Ryan Williams, Columbia’s assistant director of water and light. “The goal is to shift the market so it would increase benefits to the utility.”

The duck curve

Columbia Water & Light appears to be one of very few utilities to tackle the “duck curve,” the tendency of solar arrays to reach maximum production in the middle of the day, a few hours before demand peaks. Two years ago, the California Energy Commission ruled that new west-facing solar installations could qualify for as much as a $500 bonus.

In Texas, Austin Power “has talked about it as a possible future rate structure,” said the utility’s solar manager, Danielle Murray. “It’s forward thinking. If we did utility-owned solar, on customers’ roofs, we might focus on west-facing panels.”

The high cost of purchasing power to meet peak demand means that power produced locally at peak times “has much higher value” than power produced before the demand peak, Murray said. Late-afternoon solar energy “helps to reduce the overall system cost. You may not get the most kilowatt hours, but you get higher economic value out of it.”

The Alliance for Solar Choice tried to quantify that difference in Arizona, and determined that south-facing panels provide benefits of 15.5 cents per kilowatt hour, while west-facing panels generate 21.8 cents in benefits per kilowatt hour.

Utilities often voice objections to paying solar customers to produce energy at times when it is not needed on the grid. Columbia’s tactic, although it likely will reduce new production overall, will shift it to a time when the grid needs to supply more power.

Aside from some utilities in solar-heavy California and Hawaii, “I haven’t heard of any locations incenting that type of thing,” said Josh Rhodes, a research fellow at the Webber Energy Group and the Energy Institute at the University of Texas in Austin. “I’ve heard of people who won’t pay if you put panels on a north- or east-facing roof.”

In markets with smart meters, he observed, more west-facing solar production could be accomplished through time-of-use pricing that pays a premium in the late afternoon or other times when more power is needed.

“In most locations where PV adoption has been low, maybe it doesn’t matter as much. As more and more PV gets on the grid, it matters more and more. At some point, it might matter a whole bunch and you might see these incentives come about. Some forward-thinking utilities might want to get their rebates in line.”

‘Minimal’ impact to the market

Before the change, Columbia systems of up to 10 kilowatts could earn a rebate of $500 per kilowatt, regardless of the panel’s azimuth, or the direction it’s facing.

Under the new regimen, panels facing between 180 and 200 degrees – that is between south to slightly southwest of that – will continue to receive $500 per kilowatt. Panels facing between 200 and 320 degrees – southwest to west – will qualify for a 25 percent bonus, or an additional $125 per kilowatt. Panels facing between 110 and 180 will receive 25 percent less, or a total of $375 per kilowatt.

Panels outside the range from 110 to 320 degrees and at a tilt of more than 10 degrees from horizontal will receive no rebate, although they would continue to qualify for net metering.

Larger installations also qualify for rebates under the new system, with a bonus for panels facing west and a discount for panels with an easterly orientation. The payment per kilowatt is less than for smaller systems.

The utility is not changing the rate it pays for excess power from solar arrays. It will continue to pay retail for that power, regardless of when it’s produced, according to Eric Hempel, Columbia’s energy educator.

“The important thing to note there is that it’s less than 10 percent of all systems currently on the network” that fall into the zone that would be affected by the new rebate system, Hempel said. “So the impact to the market we feel will be minimal.”

Too soon?

Installers are not all enthusiastic about the change.

Caleb Arthur, chief executive officer of Missouri Sun Solar and president of the Missouri Solar Energy Industry Association, said he thinks the revamped rebates are premature, given that rooftop solar accounts for only about one-third of a percent of the city’s total generation. Also, he said that west-facing solar panels would have to grow significantly before they would make any dent in peak power demand.

The new rebate structure is more nuanced and will, he said, “make confusion for installers and customers.” He’s also concerned that the new rebate system may discourage people from investing in solar.

“I don’t want to see a message to people that, ‘You don’t have enough roof to do solar.’”

Although he supports the increased rebate for west-facing panels, Authur said he’s concerned that reducing the rebate for other panels might discourage potential customers.

But Hempel says this is just the start of an experiment aimed at creating a cheaper source of capacity, which is likely to become more costly in the larger energy marketplace.

“We are using this as a first step to see how the market responds.”

]]>‘Solar for All’: Can Illinois energy bill live up to ambitious promises?http://midwestenergynews.com/2017/08/02/solar-for-all-can-illinois-energy-bill-live-up-to-ambitious-promises/
Wed, 02 Aug 2017 11:00:00 +0000https://midwestenergynews.com/?p=433468After months of negotiations and surviving a contentious budget battle in the state legislature, the hard work of enacting Illinois’ comprehensive energy bill is underway.

The Future Energy Jobs Act calls for the installation of about 2,700 MW of solar in Illinois by 2030, a dramatic increase from the state’s current 75 MW.

“It’s going to be crazy, and it’s going to be really exciting,”said Lesley McCain, executive director of the Illinois Solar Energy Association. “We’ve seen such interest from around the country, from all types of developers focused on helping get this legislation built out correctly.”

About 40 percent of the new solar is to be utility-scale projects over 2 megawatts, about 50 percent is to be distributed and community solar, and two percent is to be on brownfields, with the remaining 8 percent left up to state officials’ discretion.

The state will deal with utility-scale solar much as it has in the past — through procurements carried out by the Illinois Power Agency (IPA). The 1,300 MW of new distributed solar will be the big challenge. That includes small projects under 10 kilowatts and large projects between 10kw and 2 MW. Under the new law, distributed solar and community solar will be incentivized through SRECs, or Solar Renewable Energy Credits, with the price set through an adjustable block program similar to ones in New York and California.

The Illinois Power Agency and the Illinois Commerce Commission are in charge of setting the price of these SRECs. The price must be high enough to motivate enough entities to install solar. The cost of the SRECs will ultimately be picked up by ratepayers, and a long-standing cap mandates that compliance with the RPS cannot cause rates to rise by more than two percent.

“The key will be finding a price that will drive installations while not being so high it causes a boom-bust cycle similar to the effect seen in Massachusetts and New Jersey,” said Lisa Albrecht, vice president of the Illinois Solar Energy Association and a sales specialist at Solar Service.

“They [the IPA] can adjust prices rapidly depending how the market responds, they’ll be watching to see how rapidly developers are using up those RECs and adjust up or down accordingly.”

She added that “smaller systems will likely have higher prices for RECs because they don’t have the same economies of scale. If you only have 10 kilowatts, you would need a higher-priced REC than a 1,000-kilowatt” system.

The IPA has been seeking input from experts and stakeholders, who say they are pleased with the process.

“We’re definitely seeing confidence that those prices will get set at a level that solar can be doable — that the companies will be able to sell their product,” said MeLena Hessel, clean energy and sustainable business policy advocate for the Environmental Law & Policy Center. “Built into the legislation is the ability to tinker with the pricing if it looks like it’s not set perfectly. There’s a lot of good thought and analysis going into getting it right.”

More meaningful credits

Under the law, small solar installations under 10 kw will get the money from SRECs upfront, while larger distributed solar and community solar installations will get 20 percent of the money when the array is built and the rest over four years.

Albrecht said that small installers like her company will find it much easier to work with customers under the new system.

“In the past it was you may or may not get a rebate, there’s one day in October where you may get your money,” she said. “With the new program it will be so much easier. I can see what price [SREC] is available and I can pencil that out for homeowners right when they call.”

In past Illinois procurements for distributed solar, companies that serve as aggregators have bundled small solar installations together and collected SRECs for them, passing the revenue back to the solar developer or owner in some form. Aggregators will also likely be involved in SREC distribution under the new law, though the way it plays out remains to be seen. Experts say that solar developers are likely to get the payments from SRECs, and pass those incentives on through lower costs to the entities who are buying or leasing the solar installations.

Under an adjustable block program, the price of SRECs typically goes down over time as the price of solar hardware and the cost of installation decreases.

“Early adopters should get the better SREC price, and over time that declines,” said McCain. “As the equipment as well as soft costs continue to decline, you don’t need as big an incentive. That has proven out well in other markets, so we expect to see that same trajectory here in Illinois.”

Before the law was passed, the state’s Renewable Portfolio Standard — which had a solar carveout — could be fulfilled with the purchase of renewable energy credits from other states. Critics argued that this meant few new renewable energy installations were being built, since the RPS could theoretically be fulfilled with credits from wind farms in Texas or other pre-existing and remote installations.

The new law allows for the purchase of RECs from neighboring states, but only if the purchase meets Illinois-centric criteria including that it improves the state’s air quality.

The group Environmental Defenders of McHenry County in northern Illinois is among those who hope the SRECs will make a community solar installation financially viable. Members want to do community solar on an 8-acre site where they envision solar panels surrounded by native prairie plants attracting pollinators. They are in talks with ComEd about getting the site approved, and then they will issue an RFP for developers.

Board president Nancy Schietzelt said that if the organization is able to buy its own shares in the community solar installation, it could help them become carbon neutral.

“The biggest desire of most people I talk to is to cut their electric usage and their reliance on fossil fuels,” Schietzelt said. “This is an exciting project for us.”

Environmental justice requirements

The law creates a program called Illinois Solar for All that makes funds available each year to incentivize solar installations in low-income and environmental justice communities — those that have historically been most impacted by pollution including fossil fuel generation. Anyone in Illinois at or below 80 percent of area median income would qualify for incentives, and advocates hope to see solar blossom in struggling rural Illinois towns along with urban communities.

Experts involved in the bill negotiations said it is likely SRECs being used in low-income and environmental justice communities would be worth more money than the standard SRECs. That will help make solar more affordable and cover the additional costs often involved in lower-income communities, like improving unstable roofs or archaic electric systems, and recruiting and gaining the trust of individuals and organizations who are not familiar with solar.

The law also calls for solar job training programs and jobs specifically targeting people in these communities, with special provisions for alumni of the state’s foster care system and people leaving the criminal justice system.

For job training and apprenticeship programs, the law calls for money to be disbursed in each of the years 2017, 2021 and 2025. Each of the disbursements will be $10 million, with $3 million going to training programs run by the IBEW labor union, $4 million to programs administered by specific organizations including the Chicago Urban League that are not named but are essentially identified in the legislation, and $3 million distributed to organizations through a competitive process. The utility ComEd will oversee job training under the law.

Juliana Pino is policy director of the Little Village Environmental Justice Organization (LVEJO), which along with other community organizations took the lead in fighting for environmental justice and equity in the new law. Pino said it is likely organizations with expertise in solar training will partner with community organizations that have more experience in recruiting and engaging local residents.

The law says that solar projects falling under the low-income/environmental justice category should include a job training component if possible, meaning a developer collecting the higher value SRECs or other incentives for installing solar in such communities should train and/or hire people from the targeted backgrounds.

Solar for All will be paid for by money collected as part of the Renewable Portfolio Standard and largely by the Renewable Energy Resources Fund (RERF) — a pot of money that was nearly swept into the state’s general budget. The RERF consists of money put in over years by Alternative Retail Electric Suppliers, which under the previous RPS system paid into the fund in lieu of meeting the renewable energy portfolio requirements imposed on utilities.

Under the newly structured RPS, alternative retail suppliers will not be making payments into the renewable energy fund. It seems unclear how the Solar for All Program will be fully funded once the RERF funds have been used up. But advocates said there is enough money in the fund right now — about $175 million, though some of that is already dedicated to other uses — to create a robust low-income solar program for the near future.

Pino noted that the funds remaining in the RERF are still at risk of being swept during future budgets.

“It’s up to the IPA in terms of how much money they get out the door and when,” she said. “There are some advantages to getting more out earlier since the RERF is vulnerable to sweeps as long as it sits in the state account.”

Pino said that LVEJO is currently working with residents to identify potential sites for a local community solar installation, and she said there is much enthusiasm for solar in general among residents who became focused on energy issues during the decade-long struggle to close the nearby coal-fired power plants.

“Little Village is a community deeply and adversely affected by the energy system historically,” Pino said. “Community members really said what we want is choice and agency, we want to be able to address our own energy future, to have things we had not had access to in the past. There are folks interested in seeing a community solar project here, and also people interested in seeing real family-sustaining job opportunities.

“Across all these categories, the umbrella is that theme of community control, community energy sovereignty and a just energy transition.”

Officials heard from Dulce Ortiz, a resident from Waukegan, Illinois, a city that is located 40 miles north of Chicago on Lake Michigan and home to a coal-fired power plant operated by NRG Energy.

“It is very concerning,” she said. “Waukegan’s NRG plant uses an antiquated discharge system, it releases toxins directly into Lake Michigan. As a resident and mother, I’m very concerned. Coal plants that dump into our waterway can cause long term health problems — especially in children and women that are pregnant—which I am.”

The EPA first finalized the rule change in September of 2015 in the last years of the Obama administration—updating an industry regulation that was last revised in 1982. But last April, Administrator Scott Pruitt ordered a stay on the regulation after it was opposed by industry and business groups, who said it would be burdensome and could mean plant closures.

“President Trump is putting Illinois families at risk,” she said. “We must find ways to protect our families. It greatly affects communities like mine, the community of Waukegan. We need the state of Illinois to step forward if the EPA won’t.”

EPA officials are now reconsidering the revisions to technology-based effluent limitations guideline, which would have reduced the amount of heavy metal and other waste that power plants nationwide could discharge by 1.4 billion pounds every year, according to the agency.

David Gaier, a senior spokesperson for NRG Energy, said that most of the Waukegan plant’s discharge is simply water that was taken from Lake Michigan and used to cool the generating equipment.

“No untreated coal ash water is ever discharged into the lake,” he said. “All other discharged water is treated and meets all U.S. EPA and Illinois EPA standards and meets all the [National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System] permit requirements and limits.”

In a filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, NRG Energy anticipated last year that it would cost the company $200 million over eight years to comply with the discharge regulation at 11 coal-fired power plants. The filing papers said: “The Company decides to invest capital for environmental controls based on: the certainty of regulations; evaluation of different technologies; options to convert to gas; and the expected economic returns on the capital.”

The EPA rule established new requirements for wastewater streams, and it would apply more stringent limits on the discharge of mercury, arsenic, selenium, and other pollutants from coal plants with a capacity greater than 50 megawatts. In fact, by 2023 coal plant operators would be required to upgrade their technology that does not discharge any fly ash water, bottom ash water, or other waste water into lakes and streams.

The Waukegan plant currently has two ash ponds with a liquid mixture of bottom ash and slag, according to an annual report. NRG has said that it monitors the groundwater around the Waukegan plant, and it lined its coal ash ponds in 2004 and 2005 to prevent groundwater contamination.

The regulation was intended to mitigate the risk of disposing coal ash, which include the “leaking of contaminants into ground water, blowing of contaminants into the air as dust, and the catastrophic failure of coal ash surface impoundments,” according to an EPA summary of the rule. Coal plants discharge many pollutants including lead, arsenic, mercury, and other heavy metals.

Without proper management, the contaminants can pollute ground water and drinking water, according to the agency. Recent coal ash spills in Kingston, Tennessee and Eden, North Carolina highlight the need for federal oversight.

The EPA estimates that the regulation could impact 12 percent of plants in the U.S., and the estimated cost of compliance for the rule would be $480 million per year, while the benefits associated with the rule are between $451 to $566 million.

Abi Dagit, a senior at Pekin Community High School in Pekin, Illinois, also testified. She is worried about pollution from two power plants—NRG Energy’s Powerton Station and the E.D. Edwards Plant, which is operated by a subsidiary of Dynegy—entering the Illinois River near her home. “We won’t be able to fish or swim anymore,” she said.

“If nothing is done right now these coal plants will continue to affect us in Pekin,” she said. “We are such a small town, but we have two coal plants that are 5 miles away from each other. A lot of people in my community think I’m trying to shut down the plants, it’s not that. They need to be held to standards”

The Utility Water Act Group listed Dynergy’s cost of compliance at $308 million in a petition calling for the EPA to reconsider its rule change.

NRG’s Gaier said that all power plant operators have to comply with “stringent permit conditions.” He added “As for swimming and fishing, Powerton station actually has its own cooling lake – much larger than a pond – that is clean enough for boating and recreational fishing and is stocked with fish by [Illinois Department of Natural Resources].”

Gaier said that NRG “has and will always comply with all applicable environmental laws and regulations.” The energy company will examine the issue again “once we have regulatory certainty.”

]]>In Illinois, smart thermostats seen as key energy management toolhttp://midwestenergynews.com/2017/08/01/in-illinois-smart-thermostats-seen-as-key-energy-management-tool/
Tue, 01 Aug 2017 11:00:00 +0000https://midwestenergynews.com/?p=441396Illinois’s largest utility, state regulators, environmental and consumer advocates recently rallied together in Chicago in support of an inconspicuous but powerful gadget: the smart thermostat.

Consumers have been relatively slow to adopt the energy-saving technology, which leverages sensors and WiFi to learn a consumer’s behavior and automatically adjust thermostat levels on the fly. But a wide range of energy stakeholders see great potential in better, smarter temperature controls, and they are joining forces to boost adoption rates.

It’s one small but not insignificant piece of a broader effort to overhaul the nation’s energy system all the way from the power plant across to the power outlet. Smart thermostats – like smart meters – offer both consumers and utilities more insight into how energy is used (and wasted). When aggregated across many users, smart thermostats have the potential to work in concert to significantly curb energy consumption during peak demand.

In a press conference last week, ComEd announced the goal of doubling the number of smart thermostats in Illinois households this year to 100,000. To help entice consumers, the utility has rolled out an instant rebate option worth up to $150 when paired with rebates with other Illinois gas utilities. Major smart thermostats retail for between $150 and $250 before rebates.

“With just a few taps on a smart thermostat app, customers can manage their household temperature while away from home, avoiding unnecessary energy use and costs,” said ComEd President & CEO Anne Pramaggiore, in a press release. Smart thermostats have helped consumers cut cooling costs by between 10 and 20 percent, according to ComEd.

Comparison to smartphones

Paralleling how smartphones revolutionized telecommunications, smart thermostats have the potential to dramatically enhance home energy use, advocates say. Heating and cooling make up just under half of all residential energy consumption, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

Smart thermostats are seen as a major improvement over programmable thermostats, which rely on the consumer to manually schedule when and how their thermostat runs.

“For a long time, folks like us have been advocating installing programmable thermostats but behaviorally people were not programming those programmable thermostats,” says David Jakubiak, a spokesperson for the Environmental Law & Policy Center (ELPC), which is partnering with ComEd on the effort. The advent of smart thermostats have helped solve that problem, Jakubiak says, “because the thermostat could learn your behavior and program itself.”

In 2015, ComEd, ELPC and Citizens Utility Board, a consumer-advocacy group, launched an initiative aimed at getting 1 million of the devices in Illinois homes by 2020. To date, about 80,000 homes in Illinois use a smart thermostat.

It’s an ambitious goal, but the market is seeing significant growth. Last year, there were just 7.8 million smart thermostats installed across all of North America, according to Berg Insight, a market research firm based in Sweden. That’s a 64 percent increase over the previous year. By 2021, Berg Insight says there will be smart thermostats in 43.4 million homes in North America.

When deployed widely, smart thermostats also have the potential to help utilities and grid operators better manage and curb energy use across the broader system. Nest, a popular smart thermostat company, offers a program called Rush Hour Rewards, which automatically turns down consumers’ heating or cooling in exchange for incentives from the utility. When aggregated across an entire service territory, these kinds of incremental savings can help utilities lower demand peaks, thereby reducing the need for building out additional power generating capacity.

ComEd’s AC Cycling program employs Nest Rush Hour Rewards to help regulate spikes in cooling demand on hot days. Customers can receive up to $40 in incentives for signing up for the program.

As of last April, 30 percent of households in the U.S. have access to a Nest Thermostat rebate or Rush Hour Rewards program, according to Nest.

“The best way for consumers to control their electric bills, and help the environment, is to reduce consumption,” said Brien J. Sheahan, Chairman of the Illinois Commerce Commission, a regulatory body, in a statement. “Smart thermostats give consumers greater control of, and visibility into, their energy use which promotes conservation and helps save money.”

Security issues

Smart thermostats aren’t for everyone. Homes that use radiators or window-air-conditioning units can’t reap the benefits of self-programming thermostats. The technology requires a fast and reliable internet connection as well. Some smart-thermostat programs require that consumers own their own homes, making the technology less ideal for renters.

But, for advocates, smart thermostats represent a win-win-win. Consumers can save money on their energy bills, utilities can more easily hit efficiency targets, and overall energy consumption can be reduced.

“As our electricity system is in transition, reductions in demand help to offset the need to replace one dirty fuel with another dirty fuel,” Jakubiak says. “Nobody wants to see us building a bunch of natural gas plants as we retire coal plants, and so one of the keys in doing that is – not only building robust renewables – it’s making sure that people are using energy smartly so that there’s lower demand.”